On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't • Hacker News Board

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#511

Post by buescher » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

throwaway99997 wrote: post #494

chrisseaton wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A basic, simple loan like this also is often good for your credit record.

Unless your credit score is absolutely perfect, the APR on a used car loan is easily 8-10% That's a pretty big chunk of change to spend to boost your credit record https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/rates/

Yeah, that's another way it costs to be poor. But you can read that page as "a new car loan can be as low as 4.2%, even if you only have fair-to-good credit".

It can still make sense to hang on to the cash if you don't otherwise have a cash reserve.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#512

Post by criticaljudge » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #469

dahfizz wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to "OP made good decisions and worked hard". I'm not sure how that is a counter argument to "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy". From their description, it doesn't sound like living with his Aunt was a tremendous boon either. I don't mean to argue against a social safety net (free college in this example was certainly a good thing). I jus…

> The government can not and should not lift people out of poverty if those people refuse to work to better themselves. I think everyone is deserving of not living in poverty. Even "lazy" people.

I think people quickly tire of it when they have to take care of those lazy people directly. I'm not saying nothing should be done. Just that it is a fallacy to think the government simply has infinite money to spend.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#513

Post by supersour » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

huevosabio wrote: post #388

TrackerFF wrote: post #374

I think the biggest threat to poor people, would be the ridiculous housing market. It's not just in big expensive cities, it's pretty much everywhere. Only places that are being spared, are those in destitute areas with some serious emigration problems - but those things happen for a reason (no work). In my country (Norway), the housing market has appreciated around 5.5% ANNUALLY, compared to annual wage increase of…

You can't have an eternally appreciating housing market and affordable housing [0], one has to give. Our current housing market appreciation comes from systematic housing shortage. Rognlie finds out that the increase in return to capital (vs return to labor) observed by Piketty comes largely from the residential real estate sector [1]. It turns out, Henry George was right. We need to tax the value of land such that w…

I've been thinking about this as well, and I think the crux of the problem is that housing is a prime investment. I'd imagine for most older Americans, real estate makes up a significant amount of their nest egg. In my circle, it seems like there is much more talk about housing investment than stocks or something similar.

If this is true, then it implies that the corrective paths are all things which will negatively impact the investments of anyone with a mortgage. I wonder what percent of the voting body they make up? I think this is part of why we aren't seeing change. It seems like somebody has to lose out.

I think these are the main solutions. As you see they are all legislation dependent:

1. As you mention, larger tax on housing, especially on those which are used as rental properties.

2. Saturate housing markets with government housing, which don't need to be priced at subsidized rates but only at a rate such that no rent seeking behaviour would be practiced in a 40-50 year window. A 0% IRR investment from the government would not cost taxpayers nearly as much as subsidized housing.

3. Relax building code standards and zoning regulations to drastically increase the supply of low cost real-estate opportunities.

4. Related to 3, relax laws relating to mobile homes/RVs/tiny homes and allow people to live in them if they have a place to keep them. I know in many places this is illegal, even in very rural areas [1].

[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7501035/bc-couple-salmo-land-evic...

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#514

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #479

whimsicalism wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government can not and should not lift people out of poverty if those people refuse to work to better themselves. I think everyone is deserving of not living in poverty. Even "lazy" people.

For some definition of "deserving", I would agree. Certainly, everyone should have the tools and opportunities they need to build the life they want. Society has limited resources. Until we manage the post-scarcity utopia, I would prefer my tax dollars go to someone who will use them to build a better life.

Half of all private wealth is inherited, not earned through work, by the wealthiest 5% of households.

In that context, why focus on giving small portions of wealth to those in poverty (even if they aren't working as hard as you think they ought to)?

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#515

Post by 35fbe7d3d5b9 » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #479

whimsicalism wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government can not and should not lift people out of poverty if those people refuse to work to better themselves. I think everyone is deserving of not living in poverty. Even "lazy" people.

For some definition of "deserving", I would agree. Certainly, everyone should have the tools and opportunities they need to build the life they want. Society has limited resources. Until we manage the post-scarcity utopia, I would prefer my tax dollars go to someone who will use them to build a better life.

This is a lie. The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone. We've chose to build a system that does not.

Perhaps you find that defensible, perhaps you find that appalling, but argue that position, not one that isn't true.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#516

Post by cableshaft » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

mikem170 wrote: post #235

cableshaft wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have to be a multimillionaire when you've retired if you want to have any semblance of a comfortable retirement, because any serious injury or health issue (which will happen at some point) will do a damn good job of sucking up most or all of that money away super fast. If you're younger at least you might get lucky with GoFundMe "insurance", but that requires your st…

> Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have to be a multimillionaire when you've retired That's just not true. Everyone qualifies for Medicare when they are 65 years old. An extra $150/month gets you supplemental insurance, with a lower deductable than many work plans. Also, and this is significant, medical bills can't collect against retirement accounts. The law is that they can't touch it. Same with yo…

After doing the math, it's looking like my rough estimate was a little high, but I suspect the numbers I'm about to share is higher than you're thinking.

Sure, they qualify for Medicare, but that doesn't mean they won't be still be spending serious money on healthcare. According to CNBC, if you were retiring in 2019, as a couple in good health you'll need on average of $390,000[1]. That assumes you're on Medicare as well. I'm guessing most people here are about 35 years old or younger, so not eligible for Medicare for at least another 30 years.

If I assume 2.5% inflation over the next 30 years (the default given in the following link[2]), that $390k in 2019 becomes $860k in 2051.

Granted that seems to be the average, and there will be people with less expenses. But that's just healthcare. While you'll probably own your home outright by then, there's the eventual assisted living that might be in your future as well, which already can cost up to $1500-4000 a month today (with monthly expenses another $2k+)[3], let alone 40-50 years from now. Although I suspect some people help pay for that by selling their homes at that point.

So okay, maybe you don't need to be a multi-millionaire when you retire to be comfortable, but you probably should try to be a millionaire, at least you and your spouse together (assuming you're going to have one).

One thing I didn't take into account was Social Security, which assuming it's still around in 2050 that will offset some of this. I do have a bad habit of assuming Social Security is going to be either severely nerfed or fall apart by the time I retire, so I tend not to account for it in my retirement planning. Maybe you could knock off $300k thanks to Social Security checks, I don't know and don't have time to dig further.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/retiring-this-year-how-much-...

[2] https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator

[3] https://www.assistedliving.org/the-average-cost-of-senior-li...

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#517

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

criticaljudge wrote: post #512

whimsicalism wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government can not and should not lift people out of poverty if those people refuse to work to better themselves. I think everyone is deserving of not living in poverty. Even "lazy" people.

I think people quickly tire of it when they have to take care of those lazy people directly. I'm not saying nothing should be done. Just that it is a fallacy to think the government simply has infinite money to spend.

Probably also a fallacy that it would take infinite amounts of money to alleviate poverty (:

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#518

Post by heurist » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #459

whack wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone. I love your story. There's also a ton of people who will delight in cherry-picking your story, as justification for not expanding the social safety net. "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy" A few factors to consider: - You had an aunt you could live with - As a yo…

3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to "OP made good decisions and worked hard". I'm not sure how that is a counter argument to "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy". From their description, it doesn't sound like living with his Aunt was a tremendous boon either. I don't mean to argue against a social safety net (free college in this example was certainly a good thing). I jus…

You'd throw impoverished and depressed people under the bus because they can't muster the energy to "better" themselves?

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#519

Post by standardUser » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

throwaway-0987 wrote: post #174

Throwaway because I don't want my co-workers to know. I was poor. My father left home when I was a kid in middle school. My mom worked part time cleaning houses and left us when she found a new husband. I dropped out of high-school in the 9th grade and went to work. Low paying jobs. I lived with my aunt on the bad side of town. Fast-forward 35 years. Today, I make about 200K per year. I got a GED, went to trade schoo…

I really enjoy your story, but to say "I made it and you can too" presumes there is an endless supply of $200k jobs in this country. There obviously is not, and we can't conceive of an economy wherein there would be, so the "you" who can make it "too" is always going to be an exclusive and finite group.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#520

Post by renewiltord » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #459

whack wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone. I love your story. There's also a ton of people who will delight in cherry-picking your story, as justification for not expanding the social safety net. "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy" A few factors to consider: - You had an aunt you could live with - As a yo…

3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to "OP made good decisions and worked hard". I'm not sure how that is a counter argument to "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy". From their description, it doesn't sound like living with his Aunt was a tremendous boon either. I don't mean to argue against a social safety net (free college in this example was certainly a good thing). I jus…

The way I see it is that we should optimize less for the theory of pure agency. It's like the Polgar sisters - bootstrapping with structure yields benefits.

So it's less about "refuse to work to better themselves" and more about correctly placing incentives on the growth path for individuals so that they become the kind of people who want to "better themselves".

Of course there are those who, provided any amount of support, will not become productive individuals and it makes sense to continuously evaluate for growth.

But it is beneficial to society and to each participant to offer a minimum childhood to adulthood transition experience that optimizes for productive adults.

Of course, this is usually only important for the poor because most wealthier people are better at bringing up children.